United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60996
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
$2,254 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant,
CHARLIE GAVIN,
Claimant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CV-12
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Gavin, federal prisoner # 10867-042, appeals from
the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking to void
the civil forfeiture of $2,254 in United States currency pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We review the district court’s ruling
on a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4) motion de novo. Carter v. Fenner,
136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-60996
-2-
Gavin argues pursuant to United States v. James Daniel Good Real
Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993), that he was denied the
predeprivation safeguards of notice and a hearing in violation of
his due process rights.
Good is inapposite, however, because it dealt only with the
seizure of real property. 510 U.S. at 53; cf. Calero-Toledo v.
Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 679 (1974). The civil
forfeiture of currency is authorized by 19 U.S.C. § 1607(a).
United States v. Kadonsky, 216 F.3d 499, 503 (5th Cir. 2000).
The record reveals that the Government satisfied the notice
requirements of § 1607(a) when it published notification of the
forfeiture in the local newspaper and personally served Gavin
with the complaint for forfeiture. Gavin’s allegation that the
record was devoid of such evidence is unsubstantiated.
AFFIRMED.